President Bush may have unwittingly done the stem cell research
community a big favor in 2001 when he outlawed federal funding
for all but a very limited category of work in the field.
For all that scientists bemoan Bush's ideologically inspired
hobbling of a highly promising biomedical discipline, stem cell
research has since acquired a gratifyingly high profile. Nancy
Reagan and Ron Reagan Jr., believing that the new science might
alleviate the Alzheimer's disease that afflicted Ronald Reagan
in his last years, have urged Bush to reverse himself. Sen.
John F. Kerry also has supported lifting the restrictions.
And now, here comes Proposition 71.
Scheduled for November's state ballot, Proposition 71 calls
for a $3-billion bond to finance stem cell research in California.
The initiative has been endorsed by business lobbies, medical
associations and political leaders (mostly Democrats) who see
California becoming the world's stem cell capital, with all
that means in new business, employment and prestige.
"There's the possibility of putting California in the
front ranks of biotechnology," says Treasurer Phil Angelides,
who with Controller Steve Westly is the measure's biggest Democratic
fan. "It's a risk worth taking."
But even if you accept that stem cell research may someday
alleviate ailments such as diabetes and Lou Gehrig's disease,
there's cause to wonder whether Proposition 71's sponsors aren't
overselling the state of knowledge in the field and understating
the proposal's cost.
It may be hard for voters to fully grasp the vastness of this
financial commitment. No research program approaching this scale
has ever been mounted by any state. The effort, elephantine
even by California standards, would allocate nearly twice as
much money to one scientific field as the University of California
has spent on all its research facilities over the last 25 years.
It would dwarf the California Breast Cancer Research Program,
the largest state-sponsored research effort in the nation, which
has granted scientists a comparatively paltry total of $150
million since 1994.
Proposition 71's supporters contend that the program is appropriately
sized, given the breadth of the undertaking.
"We're dealing with 70 different diseases, not one,"
says Robert Klein II, the Northern California real estate developer
who is the measure's driving force.
Klein, who has a 14-year-old son with juvenile diabetes and
a parent with Alzheimer's and who has contributed $2
million of the $7 million raised by the stem cell campaign thus
far says researchers need the long-term financial support,
insulated from budgetary fits and starts, that can be provided
only by a big state bond.
Still, the sponsors have sugar-coated the program's real cost
of $6 billion (including interest). They say the bond won't
"increase or create any new taxes," but they can't
back up that pledge.
New state income and sales taxes generated from the program
will supposedly cover the interest due on the bonds during the
first five years. But the supporters' own economic study shows
that in the following nine years, when annual debt service on
the bonds soars to more than $170 million, the putative tax
gains will cover only 11% to 19% of that sum.
Where will they find the rest?
They say they're confident that millions of dollars will roll
into state coffers from patent royalties, new businesses attracted
by California's turbocharged research environment and healthcare
savings derived from stem-cell-inspired cures.
But that's highly conjectural. UC's royalty revenue in 2003
from its entire portfolio of 900 patented inventions came to
$67 million. As for when, or even whether, stem cell research
will produce a healthcare bonanza, most leading researchers
are loath to guess.
"There may be an unwarranted impression that widespread
clinical application of new therapies is certain and imminent,"
a 2002 National Academy of Sciences report noted. "In fact,
stem cell research is in its infancy." Barring a big jackpot,
then, the stem cell bonds will be repaid out of the state budget
which is, um, financed by taxes.
Is the Proposition 71 campaign unrealistically raising people's
hopes by glossing over the scientific challenges ahead? One
has to dig mighty deep in the campaign website (named, prematurely,
curesforcalifornia .com) to find any caveats about the current
state of stem cell science.
Much more prominently featured is a stream of personal testimonials
about the suffering caused by maladies that may (or may not)
respond, someday, to stem cell therapy. Moving as these accounts
are, to deploy them on behalf of a $3-billion state bond issue
is simply an appeal to emotion.
That brings us to how the stem cell program fits into California's
overall research picture. In part to avoid facing this question,
the backers of Proposition 71 deliberately avoided bringing
the issue to the state Legislature, which is responsible for
weighing competing demands for state resources.
Klein says he didn't want the program "encumbered by lots
of political considerations." Presumably, what his group
really feared was the cumbersome process by which elected representatives
decide whether, say, $3 billion in state debt capacity should
all go to stem cell research or to a broader biomedical research
program, or even to highway construction or schoolroom renovation
instead. If Proposition 71 passes, such choices will be severely
And no one should forget that the Proposition 71 campaign is
political anyway: It's the legacy of the philistine science
policy of the White House, which has forestalled a national
debate over the costs, possibilities and moral implications
of stem cell research. One prominent stem cell expert and supporter
of Proposition 71 described the initiative campaign as "a
substitute for the national dialogue." But with a potential
bill of $3 billion plus interest, this talk sure won't be cheap.
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always
been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such
material available in our efforts to advance understanding of
biotechnology and public policy issues. We believe this constitutes a
'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section
107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section
107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those
who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included
information for research and educational purposes. For more information
go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use
copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go
beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.